New Delhi, Sep 27 (UNI) The Supreme Court has dismissed the review petition filed by the Gujarat Government to expunge certain remarks in the judgment passed by it while setting aside the premature release of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, a lawyer said on Friday.
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said on Thursday that there is no apparent error on the face of the record or merit in the review petitions.
Gujarat claimed that the Court’s severe remarks suggesting the state acted “in tandem” with one of the convicts were unwarranted and prejudicial and sought to expunge it.
But the Apex Court said it found no fault in their previous judgement.
While setting aside the remission of 11 convicts in the Bilkis Bano case, the Supreme Court had in January slammed the Gujarat government, by saying that it acted in tandem with the convict who had moved Court seeking a direction for the consideration of his premature release application.
In the convict’s writ petition, the Court had in May 2022 held the State of Gujarat to be the appropriate government for considering the remission plea, triggering the series of events that resulted in the release of 11 convicts who were serving life imprisonment.
These convicts were sentenced to life imprisonment for multiple murders and gang rapes during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat.
They were released by the Gujarat government in August 2022, on the Independence Day.
Subsequently, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Bilkis Bano and allowed her writ petition assailing the remission. The case relates to an attack that took place in 2002 Gujarat riots, in which a gang of 11 men gang raped a pregnant woman.
The Court held that the State of Gujarat was not the ‘appropriate government’ to decide their remission pleas within the meaning of Section 432 of the CrPC, as the trial had been transferred to Maharashtra.
The State in its review petition claimed that it acted in accordance with the Supreme Court’s direction passed on May 2022.
The state contended that it could not be accused of “usurping” jurisdiction from the State of Maharashtra, as it was acting as per the Court’s order.
The State of Gujarat argued that it had consistently maintained before the Court that Maharashtra was the appropriate government to handle the remission pleas under the CrPC.
